Google shows off four prescription frames for Glass. The total package costs $1724.

The Verge is reporting that Google will release four prescription frames designed to work with Google Glass. Google calls the frames the "Titanium collection," after the metal they're produced from. The four frame styles are designed by Google itself, rather than a traditional glasses designer, and have the necessary shape and hardware (i.e., a screw hole) for mounting Google Glass to the frames.

The Glass hardware itself is identical to the second revision of Glass, which features an optional ear bud and removable hardware for this exact purpose. The report says the Glass frames should be on sale sometime today for $225. That's $225 on top of the $1,499 Google charges for Glass, bringing the total cost to $1,724. After getting Glass and glasses frames, customers will still have to get prescription lenses cut for the frames, which will have to be done at an eyeglass shop.

Until now, it was extremely difficult for users of prescription glasses to even try Glass. Glass already comes mounted on a frame, so it was basically like trying to wear two pairs of glasses. Now that Glass can work with a much wider audience, Google says it will slowly ramp up the Explorer program and invite more users to purchase Glass. There is currently no purchase link for the frames, but the Google Glass Google+ page has links to the various frame styles of both glasses and sunglasses that will be available.

Well, there's always been varying levels of Glass working with prescription frames, from the dual-glasses method to connecting lenses to the Glass frame, which is what that guy did. This is the first out-of-the-box solution from Google though.

This may be a naive question, but why not make Google Glass a clip-on, so you can use it on any set of glasses?

Weight and frame design. The actual Glass assembly isn't too heavy, but all the weight is on one side/corner of the frame so many may not be strong enough or shaped properly to support it in the right position. It also doesn't take a lot of weight to shift glasses off to one side causing misalignment. Google's frames, both with and without lenses, are designed with counterweights to correct for this problem.

I keep being surprised by both the positive and the negative emotions which GG evokes in people. To me, it's just a "meh" experimental product with too little appeal to justify the price.

It's not that surprising if you really think about it from the same perspectives, which are largely based in experiences & interests:-- Many of the strongly anti-GG people often have learned to fear being found (or a loved one being found) by a particular person, learned (firsthand/otherwise) that a stray photo of them posted by someone else can lead to being disciplined or fired, or have studied psychology, sociology & history enough to see the damage that will be done to individuals & society. Fear is a powerful motivator.

-- Many of the strongly pro-GG people are enamored with technology, and either don't have the above experiences/knowledge, don't really believe it applies to Glass (blinded by their love, in a sense), or file it into "stuff I don't care about because it can't possibly happen to me." More than a few I've seen openly take the stance of, "I want the shiny new gadget and if it fucks someone else's life up, then they probably did something to deserve/cause it so I don't give a shit."

-- Both sides feel that much stronger about the matter in direct reaction to their opposition... The anti-Glass side sees the callous or clueless attitude of the pro-G people as proof that anyone that buys it can't be trusted to make an effort to avoid harming others. The pro-G side sees the anti-G crowd as paranoid luddites, and their attitude as proof that any degree of compromise will just result in demands for more rules against using it or any other new technology.

I keep being surprised by both the positive and the negative emotions which GG evokes in people. To me, it's just a "meh" experimental product with too little appeal to justify the price.

It's not that surprising if you really think about it from the same perspectives, which are largely based in experiences & interests:-- Many of the strongly anti-GG people often have learned to fear being found (or a loved one being found) by a particular person, learned (firsthand/otherwise) that a stray photo of them posted by someone else can lead to being disciplined or fired, or have studied psychology, sociology & history enough to see the damage that will be done to individuals & society. Fear is a powerful motivator.

That last argument could apply to any technology that ever had any effect on society (writing systems, gunpowder, medicine, internal combustion engines, the Internet, etc.)

If we had let every possible misuse of technology stop us from developing it, we would still be living in caves.

This may be a naive question, but why not make Google Glass a clip-on, so you can use it on any set of glasses?

Weight and frame design. The actual Glass assembly isn't too heavy, but all the weight is on one side/corner of the frame so many may not be strong enough or shaped properly to support it in the right position. It also doesn't take a lot of weight to shift glasses off to one side causing misalignment. Google's frames, both with and without lenses, are designed with counterweights to correct for this problem.

Good point. But most modern frames are quite strong, and if you can clip on the glass, you can also clip on a counter weight (although I agree it becomes quite a bit more fiddly).

This may be a naive question, but why not make Google Glass a clip-on, so you can use it on any set of glasses?

Weight and frame design. The actual Glass assembly isn't too heavy, but all the weight is on one side/corner of the frame so many may not be strong enough or shaped properly to support it in the right position. It also doesn't take a lot of weight to shift glasses off to one side causing misalignment. Google's frames, both with and without lenses, are designed with counterweights to correct for this problem.

Good point. But most modern frames are quite strong, and if you can clip on the glass, you can also clip on a counter weight (although I agree it becomes quite a bit more fiddly).

It isn't that the frames these days aren't strong enough to support the additional weight. The problem is the counterweight is spread throughout the frame including in both ear pieces. Considering that there are thousands of styles with different weights, different lens sizes and shapes (cat eye, round, oval, rectangular, ad-man small, buddy holly, the massive shapes from the 70's and 80's that have become resurgent, etc.), different angles at the point of connection between the frame face and the temple (rounded shaped arcing close to the wearer's face, sticking out 90 degrees, and everything in between), different points of connection for the frame face and the temple (upper corner, middle, those late 70's early 80's glasses where side drops before connecting to the bottom, etc.), there just isn't a way to create a universal balancing kit at this time without making the user really reform their frame to do so. Additionally, if you make a clip on you can't really dictate the wearer's experience, it could be positioned too high or too low or directly in the line of sight. At this time it is just easier for Google to sell you a frame they know will work than to try and explain how to make Glass fit properly and face possible bad press because users don't follow the directions. Eventually when Glass is smaller, lighter, and more adjustable I have no doubt there will be a clip on.

Only the rich can afford it, if this thing intro price was $199 it will be affordable.

The current model is a dev tool, aimed at people who need access to this for their work. Programmers, futurologists, tech journalists, article writers, systems theory academics, game creators, pop psych pseudologists and so on.

Many working class people have cars or vans as transport / tools for their work. Cars / vans are vastly more expensive than Google Glass. Even cheap junker cars have high upkeep costs compared to this. (Look Ma, it's a car analogy in a tech forum!)

Anyway as repeatedly stated, this is a small-run prototype. Mass market models will be far cheaper.

I'm not sure if I'd really buy GGlass. But if I do I'd like the hardware to be clip on...or at least easily removable from my glasses.

I have -8.5/-8 and if I were somehow forced to remove my glasses because of it I'd run into every streetlamp there is.

I'm unsure how exact the alignment of GGlass must be though. So the solution might be unpractical.

Having a second pair of standard glass ?

My standard pair of glasses already costs me CHF700 =~$800 (which is no longer covered by insurance in Switzerland since 2011). I could bring that cost down quite a bit by having thicker glasses and have them made from plastic...but it's a pain to wear those.

Depending on the final cost of GGlass it would be a considerable price increase for us glass wearers

I've been wearing a more primitive form of this since 1963, when I got my first pair of prescription glasses. I could look behind me by looking at the reflection at the left side of my left lense, or the right of my right lense. Sitting at my desk (I was in first grade) was cool, I could see my classmates doing whatever they were doing. Then I tried it while walking, I ended up walking into people, tripping over things, walking into streets without knowing. It was not possible to look at a display on my glasses and still look forward at the same time! This technology is an accident waiting to happen. Oh wait, perhaps this is tied to Obamacare, cause when users end up in the hospital, they will thank Obama.

Only the rich can afford it, if this thing intro price was $199 it will be affordable.

To be fair, ever been to a optometrist outside Wal-Mart? Frames are an arm and a leg because, presumably, the people who make glasses frames hate you. The average frame cost I was looking at was $150. But, to be fair, they didn't all look like stupid hipster shit.

I'm not sure if I'd really buy GGlass. But if I do I'd like the hardware to be clip on...or at least easily removable from my glasses.

I have -8.5/-8 and if I were somehow forced to remove my glasses because of it I'd run into every streetlamp there is.

I'm unsure how exact the alignment of GGlass must be though. So the solution might be unpractical.

Having a second pair of standard glass ?

My standard pair of glasses already costs me CHF700 =~$800 (which is no longer covered by insurance in Switzerland since 2011). I could bring that cost down quite a bit by having thicker glasses and have them made from plastic...but it's a pain to wear those.

Depending on the final cost of GGlass it would be a considerable price increase for us glass wearers

Very frankly, I do not see the GG as the universal glass I could wear day in and day out. Going to the pool or to the sea with a risk of theft ? Under (heavy) rain ? (I personally love -sometimes - to walk under the rain (and only sometimes, please, god of rain, notice ...). Going to an important or confidential meeting ? So, for the time being, I see the GG only as a second pair of glass to be used occasionally.

But maybe the meaning is just that I am not a GG customer at least for the near future.

Ron Amadeo / Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work.